AGRI EXIM GLOBAL PHILIPPINES INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY ENBANC AGRI EXIM GLOBAL CTA EB NO. 3075 PHILIPPINES, INC., (CTA Case No. 10621) Petitioner, Present: RINGPIS-LffiAN, P.J., BACORRO-VILLENA, -versus- MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, REYES-FAJARDO, CUI-DAVID, FERRER-FLORES, ANGELES, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL TESTON, and REVENUE, CENTENO-DIJAMCO, JJ. Respondent. Promulgated: SEP 1 X - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - RESOLUTION FERRER-FLORES,[ : Before the Court En Bane is petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision promulgated on 24 March 2026) filed on April13, 2026, with respondent' s Opposition (Re: Motion for Reconsideration of the Decision dated 24 March 2026) filed on May 6, 2026. Petitioner seeks the reversal of this Court's Decision dated March 24, 2026 (assailed Decision), 1 which denied its Petition for Review, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows: ACCORDINGLY, the Petition for Review dated February 5, 2026 is DENIED for lack of merit. The assailed Decision and Resolution dated July 12, 2024 and January 17, 2025, respectively, are AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. ' Rollo, pp. 65 to 80. \

RESOLUTION CT A EB No. 3075 (CTA Case No. 10621) Agri Exim Global Philippines, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue In its Motion for Reconsideration, petitioner claims that the Court erred in affirming the Decision of the Court in Division, which ruled that petitioner failed to establish that it was engaged in zero-rated sales for the first to fourth quarters of taxable year (TY) 2019. Petitioner also argues that it was wrong for the Court to disregard respondent's partial grant of its claim for refund. Lastly, petitioner maintains that its claim for input value-added tax (VAT) refund in the amount off'6,853,897.93 should have been granted by the Court as it was able to comply with all the requirements for a valid claim of input VAT refund under Section 112(A) of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1997, as amended. Respondent, on the other hand, avers that petitioner was not able to establish the zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sales subject of the claim for refund. Respondent also contends that claims for refund are construed strictly against the claimant and, as such, are looked upon with disfavor. After careful evaluation of the parties' arguments, the Court resolves to deny petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration. As correctly found by the Court in Division - and affirmed herein - petitioner failed to establish that it was indeed engaged in zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sales for the first to fourth quarters ofTY 2019. For one, the existence of zero-rated sales for the subject quarters could not be substantiated by the sales invoices and supporting documents submitted by petitioner. For another, petitioner was unable to account for the discrepancies between the amounts remitted to its account and the amounts reflected in the sales invoices it had issued. At the risk of being repetitive, a claim for unutilized input value-added tax (VAT) is in the nature of a tax exemption and, as such, strict adherence to the conditions prescribed by the law is required of the taxpayer. 2 The claimant bears the burden of proving the factual basis of its claim. In the present case, petitioner was unable to prove the factual basis of its claims. The Court in Division, thus, correctly denied petitioner's claim for refund. Petitioner's contention that the Court erred in disregarding respondent's partial grant of its refund claim is likewise unavailing. As stated in the assailed Decision, petitioner itself put in issue the zero-rated nature of its sales.~ 2 Steag State Power, Inc. (Formerly State Power Development Corporation) vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 205282, January 14,2019.

RESOLUTION CTA EB No. 3075 (CTA Case No. 10621) Agri Exim Global Philippines, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue As discussed in the assailed Decision, cases before the Court of Tax Appeals are litigated de novo. Since the claim for tax refund or credit was litigated anew before the Court in Division, the latter's decision should be based on the evidence formally presented before it, regardless of the body of evidence found in the administrative level. 3 Considering the foregoing, the Court in Division properly denied petitioner's claim for refund for lack of merit, and the Court En Bane finds no basis to overturn this conclusion. It is noted that petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration essentially reiterates arguments already exhaustively addressed and resolved in the assailed Decision. Petitioner failed to demonstrate any reversible error, misappreciation of evidence, or misapplication of law that would warrant a departure from the findings of the Court in Division, as affirmed by the Court En Bane. ACCORDINGLY, the Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision promulgated on 24 March 2026) is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. ES We concur: MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Presiding Justice JEAN Commissioner of internal Revenue vs. Philippine Bank of Communications, G.R. No. 211348, February 23, 2022.

RESOLUTION CTA EB No. 3075 (CTA Case No. I 0621) Agri Exim Global Philippines, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue MARIA RO~ N y ~"- . 0 E TO-SAN PEDRO ' Ass 1ate ustice ~ ~ t ~ ·ta,'w..do MARIAN IVyGl.-. REY~S-FA.i'ARDO Associate Justice ~U( LANEE S. CUI-DAVID Associate Justice HENRY s4~ELES Associate Justice DEBBIE Associate Justice